It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary

okie wrote:

We need a permanent copy of each ballot that can be hand counted if necessary. I would never favor complete electronic voting.

I completely agree. Also, this seems to be a certain advantage of optical reader machines vs. touch screen machines, for example. However, if only the 'permanent copy' printed out by the machine is used to verify the totals, it still seems way too easy to manipulate the vote.

Being able to trust that every vote will be counted seems to be as important as being able to vote in the first place. I'm actually quite happy that both a Democratic and a Republican candidate have demanded a recount in New Hampshire.

0 Replies

Quote:

The gist of the message was a ridiculous warning that Obama was in fact part of an Islamist conspiracy to take down the US from within. Of course it's basis were facts like Obama's middle name is Hussein, he went to school in Indonesia etc. Utter tripe which I really find hard to believe anyone takes seriously, but it is out there making the rounds.

Your repub friend that forwarded this to you apparently didnt tell you that ALL of these accusations have come from the Hillary camp, not the repubs.

What I find interesting is the fact that so many of the people complaining about possible voter "irregularities" are the same ones filing lawsuits and otherwise trying to stop a simple basic part of voting...requiring everyone that votes to have a photo ID before they can vote.
It seems to me that requirement by itself would stop alot of the fraud and other "irregularities" that occur now.

Every state that has proposed that has been challenged in court by some of the same people complaining about vote fraud.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
We need a permanent copy of each ballot that can be hand counted if necessary. I would never favor complete electronic voting.

I completely agree. Also, this seems to be a certain advantage of optical reader machines vs. touch screen machines, for example. However, if only the 'permanent copy' printed out by the machine is used to verify the totals, it still seems way too easy to manipulate the vote.

Being able to trust that every vote will be counted seems to be as important as being able to vote in the first place. I'm actually quite happy that both a Democratic and a Republican candidate have demanded a recount in New Hampshire.

We black in the spots beside each candidate, it is fed into a machine that reads the ballot, I presume optically as you mentioned, and this seems like a very good system. If there is a recount, the original ballot is counted. I don't see much way to tamper with those if they are properly observed during the ballot process, and then locked away, pending a recount. If we can send somebody to the moon, we ought to be able to conduct an honest election.

The New Hampshire recount results should be quite interesting.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

What I find interesting is the fact that so many of the people complaining about possible voter "irregularities" are the same ones filing lawsuits and otherwise trying to stop a simple basic part of voting...requiring everyone that votes to have a photo ID before they can vote.
It seems to me that requirement by itself would stop alot of the fraud and other "irregularities" that occur now.

Every state that has proposed that has been challenged in court by some of the same people complaining about vote fraud.

I agree, MM, I have noticed the same thing. This is so bizarre to protest the verification of the voter. Why don't Democrats want to count just legal voters? Why would they want to make it easier for illegals to vote, for people to vote twice, to perhaps vote in more than one precinct or state?

The argument is that old people don't have IDs or can't make it to the polls, or whatever, which is all nonsense. Any legal citizen that wants to vote can make it there or vote absentee if they show an ounce of motivation.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

We black in the spots beside each candidate, it is fed into a machine that reads the ballot, I presume optically as you mentioned, and this seems like a very good system.

Yes, those are the optical reader machines. It seems to be a good system, as you'll still have the original ballot to count. But those were exactly the machines that proved very easily hackable, and the same machines that were used in Volusia.

Just for giggles: did you watch the video? What do you think?

okie wrote:

If there is a recount, the original ballot is counted. I don't see much way to tamper with those if they are properly observed during the ballot process, and then locked away, pending a recount.

Problem is that you'd still have to go through a recount.

okie wrote:

If we can send somebody to the moon, we ought to be able to conduct an honest election.

The New Hampshire recount results should be quite interesting.

Well said. I completely agree with the above.

0 Replies

It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary
That is the title of this thread.

And I presume that the author of this thread thinks that this kind of low muddy campaign is taking place only Dems platform.

( I am of the opinion that USA with billions of donated money is making a show every 4 years in the name of Democracy and the so called intellectual stenographers( Journalists) entertain the voters instead of educating them properly to pick up the right person to lead.
Machines are being used in India( 60 percent illeterate or not fully litterate) and there this Computer counting is not the problem.
When you compare the participants of the election the percentage of voters franchaise is far far better than in USA.)

this American author had a different view.

here is my cut and paste

"If reality has any bearing on the 2008 election, it should be a Democratic year, but campaigns are romantic ventures and illusion is part of the deal, just as in actual courtship. So anything is possible. And that's what makes a man walk barefoot out on a freezing-cold porch floor and pick up the paper in the morning. While the Democrats are talking wonkish talk about healthcare and education, you are waiting for three Iranians in a skiff to hurl loose gravel at an American aircraft carrier and for this to become the next chapter in the war against terror and give Mr. Giuliani a chance to talk about waterboarding again.

Before we get to the monster February primaries, however, let's clear the air on the subject of Going Negative, which various candidates are said to have done from time to time.

Look at any newspaper story with the verb "blasted" or "lashed out" in the headline and you're astonished at what passes for blasting and lashing these days. If one candidate questions another candidate's version of the facts, this is considered a blast, though there is no explosion, just some light poking.

The Washington Post said Mike Huckabee "lashed out" at Mitt Romney for having shifted positions on abortion and gun control, and ABC News said Barack Obama "lashed out" at Bill Clinton for mischaracterizing Obama's record on the war in Iraq, and meanwhile, according to Time, Hillary Clinton "lashed out" at both Obama and John Edwards in the New Hampshire debate, though it didn't mention what she was lashing about. NPR said John McCain "lashed out" at Romney for saying McCain had voted against tax cuts in the Senate, and the Chicago Tribune reported that Romney "lashed out" at McCain for being "pessimistic" about the prospects of job growth in Michigan.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/keillor/2008/01/16/candidates/

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Just for giggles: did you watch the video? What do you think?

What do I think? I think I have no idea if this youtube video has any validity or if it is some kind of concocted sob story. We have a system to check these voting machines to determine if they give accurate results. There are standards whereby machines are certified by the Attorney Generals, etc.

I have observed the political scene long enough here that yes, I believe there could be fraud, but as posted, I also know the Democrats are actively engaged in preventing prodedures that would eliminate vote fraud. I won't say Republicans are above doing the same, but red state areas, rural areas, I believe have less fraud in general. I have personally observed and we have been involved as election judges, and knowing the people running these elections, there is little reason to believe there is any fraud whatsoever.

As far as machines making mistakes, again, these machines need to be certified, and if there are problems, they simply need to be tightened up, and there are procedures available to point out problems and to have them corrected.

0 Replies

Ramafuchs, I have noticed the usage of the words in the media as well, "lashing out," "attacking," blah blah. I think it is a new tactic being used in the media, and I'm not sure from whence this comes or what exactly is the goal. I think it can be used to channel the support toward the media's chosen candidates, either the one they believe they want to win, or the candidate they think can be most easily beaten by their chosen party. I am ever vigilant of subliminal messages spun by the media. The media is not to be trusted anymore.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

What do I think? I think I have no idea if this youtube video has any validity or if it is some kind of concocted sob story. We have a system to check these voting machines to determine if they give accurate results. There are standards whereby machines are certified by the Attorney Generals, etc.

Hmm yes. I'd like to point out that it's not just a youtube video, it's part of this HBO documentary. For what it's worth.

But of course there's also the UC Berkeley Report, commissioned by the Secretary of State of California.

okie wrote:

I have observed the political scene long enough here that yes, I believe there could be fraud, but as posted, I also know the Democrats are actively engaged in preventing prodedures that would eliminate vote fraud. I won't say Republicans are above doing the same, but red state areas, rural areas, I believe have less fraud in general. I have personally observed and we have been involved as election judges, and knowing the people running these elections, there is little reason to believe there is any fraud whatsoever.

Understood. I'd rather see the problem in the fact that a single person, merely by switching a memory card, could circumvent all the built-in safety measures.

But yes, here we have national IDs. That's how you get notified for elections (you don't have to register first), and how voters are verified. Seems to work fine.

Then again, and depending on what kind of database or system would be behind that, I can see why people would oppose some kind of national ID.

okie wrote:

As far as machines making mistakes, again, these machines need to be certified, and if there are problems, they simply need to be tightened up, and there are procedures available to point out problems and to have them corrected.

Yup. Doesn't seem to be quite that simple, though. But yes.

0 Replies

Okie
thanks for your views.
I expect some journalistic acumen and talent to make the election Issue-oriented and not about gender, colour or the other immaterial nonsense.
None wish to solve the presentday problem.
UNFORTUNATELY

0 Replies

Juan Williams on FOX News Sunday had this very interesting (paraphrased) comment to make:

Obama needs to return to his presence as a compelling candidate; larger than his racial identity.

The Clintons have successfully reduced him to The Black Candidate, and this has happened within the Democratic Party - it's painful.

0 Replies

Oh yea; the clintons did it all by themselves. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Oh yea; the clintons did it all by themselves.

Who in your view accomplished this besides Bill Clinton?

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

revel wrote:
Oh yea; the clintons did it all by themselves.

Who in your view accomplished this besides Bill Clinton?

The media and Obama himself had a hand in it.

0 Replies

How, though?

0 Replies

Come on Soz. If you read some of Obamas speeches with an open mind you can see him using the race card.

0 Replies

Examples?

Note, this started with "successfully reduced him to The Black Candidate." I'm not saying that he never mentions race, but the race card has different connotations. Where has he done that? How has he contributed to what has often been called "the race row" that started about when Bill Clinton gave his "fairy tale" speech that distressed Donna Brazile, and gathered steam when Hillary Clinton made her comments about MLK?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Examples?

Note, this started with "successfully reduced him to The Black Candidate." I'm not saying that he never mentions race, but the race card has different connotations. Where has he done that? How has he contributed to what has often been called "the race row" that started about when Bill Clinton gave his "fairy tale" speech that distressed Donna Brazile, and gathered steam when Hillary Clinton made her comments about MLK?

Tell me how "fairy tale" speech translates into a race speech? Or how saying without a president to sign the Civil Rights into law; MLK dream would not have been realized? How are those racial statements; yet Obama took those statements and ran with it. And now that he is being called on it; he is complaining about it.

I liked Obama; but I think he sunk a little and used tactics beneath him in order to combat the Clintons. It all falls right into the hands of republicans; they couldn't be more gleeful about it.

0 Replies

You must not be reading news, but someone's talking points, revel.
Obama not only didn't reply to any race-based implications of Clinton's statements, but he said straight out that he didn't think what the Clintons said has racial connotations.

The only people stirring the racial thing that I've seen have been media whores like Chris Matthews and George Stephanopolis and all the usual suspects on the right.

In fact, when all three candidates were baited over about 20 minutes during the last debate, to their credit all of them tried to steer the topic elsewhere.

I think your suggestion that Obama is actively trying to use any kind of "race-card" to his advantage is patently false, and I join with Sozobe in challenging you to produce direct quotes from Obama that resemble any thing of the sort.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

yet Obama took those statements and ran with it. And now that he is being called on it

That's exactly what I'm disputing. That "Obama took those statements and ran with it." How? When?

Donna Brazile was concerned. James Clyburn was concerned. (Both neutral people who have not endorsed anyone.) There was a fair amount of press about the comments, and the concern they'd garnered from Brazile and Clyburn. Hillary Clinton went on Meet the Press and said that Obama was behind all of this. Behind all of what? It was at that point -- after Meet the Press -- that Obama said, um, I haven't said anything about this yet! Later that day, BET founder Robert Johnson said some dunderheaded things about what Obama was doing "in the neighborhood." Clinton's campaign quickly issued an explanation from him that said that he meant community organizing, that's all, really. Obama's campaign said, that doesn't make any sense! (Nelson then later -- several days later -- admitted he was referring to drug use, and apologized.)

Then Obama (1 day after he'd finally said something about the "race row," and about about a week and a half after the whole things started) said, look, the Clintons are good people. This race stuff is distracting from real issues. Let's talk about the issues and keep things positive, OK?

An hour or so later a press release from Clinton -- sure, yep, positive, good idea.

Meanwhile Rangel -- a Clinton supporter -- is calling Obama "absolutely stupid."

Obama doesn't respond.

The next day is a debate... everyone's cordial.

The whole thing dies down.

And the end result -- people thinking that Obama "took those statements and ran with it."

0 Replies

It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know